[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190711180417.1358ba8b359f68bbf92cf3c2@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 18:04:17 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Sai Charan Sane <s.charan@...sung.com>, mhocko@...e.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, joe@...ches.com,
miles.chen@...iatek.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, a.sahrawat@...sung.com,
pankaj.m@...sung.com, v.narang@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/page_owner: store page_owner's gfp_mask in
stackdepot itself
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 15:51:32 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:
> On 6/7/19 7:53 AM, Sai Charan Sane wrote:
> > Memory overhead of 4MB is reduced by storing gfp_mask in stackdepot along
> > with stacktrace. Stackdepot memory usage increased by ~100kb for 4GB of RAM.
> >
> > Page owner logs from dmesg:
> > Before patch:
> > allocated 20971520 bytes of page_ext
> > After patch:
> > allocated 16777216 bytes of page_ext
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sai Charan Sane <s.charan@...sung.com>
>
> I don't know, this looks like unneeded abuse to me. In the debug
> scenario when someone boots a kernel with page_owner enabled, does 4MB
> out of 4GB RAM really make a difference?
Thanks. I'll drop this patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists